Great Lakes plan is progressing

October 26, 2006

One could get the impression that all the ecological news regarding the Great Lakes is in the form of dire warnings. In fact, some things ecological are going well. There is reason to hope, for example, that efforts to make the Great Lakes cleaner and their environment more favorable to native species actually are paying off. Of course, there also are some things that could be done better. But good news is good news. The big plan to clean up and protect the Great Lakes -- a comprehensive federally centered effort to tackle long-term ecological problems -- reportedly is on schedule. Progress isn't perfect, as the states and agencies that are complaining about shortfalls in federal funding are quick to point out. But, the plan is moving forward in a timely fashion. Efforts are based on a $20 billion ecosystem restoration blueprint, dubbed the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. It incorporates public and private interests; local, state and federal governments; and a 15-year timeline. The reality is, if the people who want to preserve the massive Great Lakes ecosystem do not work together, then there is little hope for success. The two most pressing problems are farm run-off and sewage overflows and invasive plant and animal species. Addressing the sewage and run-off problem involves such complexities as restructuring the treatment systems of towns and cities far upstream on the rivers that feed the big lakes. Without a commitment from municipal governments, along with state and federal mandates to make it happen, progress would be scant. The invasive species dilemma has played out like a slow-motion version of a 1950s horror movie. Creatures ranging from hundred-pound Asian carp to tiny, relentless zebra mussels are either bearing down on the lakes or already have become established. Many of the species have been introduced into the lakes in the ballast water of foreign ships. Even when the ballast water is exchanged for ocean salt water, as it has been since 1993, the sludge in the bottom of the tanks still conveys the damaging invaders. The solution is for the EPA to require shippers to treat all ballast water before it is discharged into the lakes, to make sure that no hitch-hiking species are discharged with it. The EPA's Great Lakes National Program director, Gary Gulezian, told the Associated Press this month that the 15-year plan is making notable progress in these crucial areas. It also is important that Canada, which has just as big a stake as the United States in the Great Lakes, be engaged jointly in making and applying policies. The International Joint Commission, which advises the United States and Canada on issues regarding the Great Lakes, including toxic spills in the lakes and their basin, has taken a step in that direction. The U.S. and Canadian co-chairmen of the Joint Commission have issued a report that acknowledges a serious lack of coordination between the countries in gathering data on spills, reporting it to the public and sharing it with one another. Frankly, it is difficult to understand why this would be such a tough nut to crack. The United States and Canada have no greater shared ecological interest than the Great Lakes. Nothing short of a consistent, effective policy for dealing with toxic discharge should be acceptable to either one. It seems to us that the EPA, Environment Canada and state and provincial environmental enforcement agencies have partnership roles to play in solving this problem. Now that the Joint Commission has helped to define the problem, there should be no delay in solving it. One big challenge for those determined to save and protect the Great Lakes is getting through the bureaucracies of multiple government layers. Another is cost and Congress' willingness to appropriate money as it's needed. But what once had been the biggest challenge -- prioritizing the problems and devising a plan -- has been at least partly achieved. A solution? Not yet. But progress? It certainly seems so.